Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said some very interesting and revealing things in her appearance at the Saban Center’s gala dinner on November 30. They are, however, being quoted out of context. Let’s look at what she actually said in some detail for a sense of how the Obama administration’s highest-ranking foreign policy official and a likely future presidential candidate thinks about this issue.

Let me note also that the statement was made at an institution that might be considered friendly to Israel and thus Clinton might have skewed her remarks to be more fair to that country than she would do in a regular international forum.

In answering a question, Clinton went into some detail about the problems facing a two-state solution and peace. Remember she is speaking extemporaneously.

First, the Israeli perception:

I think Israelis have good grounds to be suspicious. And I would never be one who tries to rewrite or dismiss history. The Palestinians could have had a state as old as I am if they had made the right decision in 1947. They could have had a state if they had worked with my husband and then-Prime Minister Barak at Camp David. They could have had a state if they’d worked with Prime Minister Olmert and Foreign Minister Livni.

Here Clinton is pointing out that the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected getting a state and that’s why they didn’t have one years ago. I cannot imagine Obama saying this kind of thing.

Now, would it have been a perfectly acceptable outcome for every Israeli and every Palestinian? No. No compromise ever is. But there were moments of opportunity. And I will also say this. When Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to a 10-month settlement freeze I flew to Jerusalem. We’d been working on this. George Mitchell had been taking the lead on it. And when Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to a 10-month settlement freeze, it wasn’t perfect. It didn’t cover East Jerusalem, but it covered much of the contested area in the West Bank.

There’s something important in this passage that no one has noticed. For the first time ever, Clinton publicly and explicitly acknowledged that the freeze did not cover East Jerusalem. Why, then, did Vice President Joe Biden throw a temper tantrum when an Israeli zoning board cleared some future construction there? At the time, the U.S. government repeatedly implied that Israel violated the agreement, which it didn’t. Now Clinton admits that.

Incidentally, the Obama administration did nothing when the Palestinian Authority refused to negotiate seriously despite the freeze on construction.

Clinton continued, and this is also revealing:

And I stood on a stage with him at 11 o’clock – Israelis always meet late at night, I don’t understand it – (laughter) – but 11 o’clock at night, midnight, and I said it was unprecedented for any Israeli prime minister to have done that. I got so criticized. I got criticized from the right, the left, the center, Israeli, Jewish, Arab, Christian, you name it. Everybody criticized me. But the fact was it was a 10-month settlement freeze. And he was good to his word. And we couldn’t get the Palestinians into the conversation until the tenth month.

I cannot remember anyone criticizing her for this statement. It was a small enough reward to Netanyahu for a major domestic political risk and a concession which in the end brought no progress for peace and no gratitude from the White House. But what Clinton says now does reflect the Western view that if you bash Israel it has no cost and if you praise Israel it is going to hurt you. I wonder if this is also a hint that Obama wasn’t happy with her praise for Netanyahu.

Thus ran her praise for Israel’s efforts. So then, in the spirit of even-handedness embraced by recent presidents in place of a former pro-Israel policy, she has to balance out this statement. When a Democratic politician has to be hyper-sensitive about saying something nice about Israel, it tells you how much things have shifted in that party and in the “liberal” context:

I’m not making excuses for the missed opportunities of the Israelis, or the lack of generosity, the lack of empathy that I think goes hand-in-hand with the suspicion. So, yes, there is more that the Israelis need to do to really demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds, and they want to figure out, within the bounds of security and a Jewish democratic state, what can be accomplished.

She makes four points:

Israelis have missed opportunities. Really, like what? If she’s aware of real ones, Clinton can provide examples, but while it is easy to list two dozen Palestinian missed opportunities — i.e., Israel was ready for real peace and they weren’t — the effort to provide some opposite example always turns out to be illusory.

Lack of generosity: This is shameful. First of all, since when is generosity an international diplomatic norm? Against what other country or people would she dare make such a statement? On further consideration, if generosity means being nice or making unilateral concessions to enemies that wish to destroy you, then the Obama administration is very generous.

But in fact Israel has been generous. It has freed large numbers of Palestinian prisoners to get back kidnapped Israelis; it let around 200,000 Palestinians come to the territories after 1993; it has used much less force than it might have; it has largely ignored continuous incitement against itself and not responded in kind. The list is a long one.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, not exactly a left-winger, even fully withdrew from the Gaza Strip and dismantled Jewish settlements in large part to give the Palestinians a chance to A) develop that area, B) see that Israel did not want the territories, and C) provide an opportunity to build a basis for peace.

Who in the world has been generous toward Israel?

Lack of empathy: This is really low on Clinton’s part. In schools, Israeli kids learn about Palestinian grievances. Israel television showed a multi-part history documentary that showed the Palestinian viewpoint. In Israeli newspapers and every other medium Palestinians are interviewed and an honest attempt is made to portray their standpoint, sometimes indeed with more sympathy than is given to Israel’s government.

Every Israeli leader, except those on the right-wing fringe, is perfectly aware of the Palestinian case and complaints. To cite only one example, Ehud Barak once said that if he had been a Palestinian he would have been a fighter in Fatah. No country in modern history has shown more empathy to its enemies.

Can anyone cite a single example — a speech, an article — on the Palestinian side that has shown any shred of empathy?

Finally, “oppressed people” and this is the most important point. If the Palestinians are an oppressed people, who is oppressing them? Here we see how the Obama administration has, at best, accepted the European version of the anti-Israel narrative. If the Palestinians keep turning down peace offers, how is Israel responsible for their “oppression”?

If they are oppressed, it is by their own leaders. Who oppresses the population of the Gaza Strip?

And once you have “the pain of an oppressed people,” it is a short step toward believing that terrorism and intransigence are just expressions of that pain, rather than the cause of it.

Clinton concluded:

And I think that, unfortunately, there are more and more Israelis and Palestinians who just reject that idea out of hand: Why bother? Why try? We’ll never be able to reach an agreement with the other. But in the last 20 years, I’ve seen Israeli leaders make an honest, good-faith effort and not be reciprocated in the way that was needed.

But here, too, there is a disproportionate idea. Relatively few Israelis reject a two-state solution out of hand. The dominant idea today is: We want a two-state solution but the other side doesn’t. On the Palestinian side, virtually none of the leadership is prepared to implement an achievable two-state solution. Indeed, they increasingly talk of a one-state solution (total victory and Israel’s destruction), an approach that is never heard among Israeli leaders.

What is objectionable is not that she criticizes Israel — she could cite various things like insufficient energy in dismantling outposts or being too permissive toward settlements — but the criticisms she makes. They all fall into the current dominant Western view that the world’s problems are caused by greedy, aggressive, unempathetic white people who oppress everyone else. Implied here is that the only solution is that such people take risks, make unilateral concessions, pay money, and continually apologize for their sins.

And that’s a formula for disaster, not only in U.S. policy toward Israel but everywhere else.

I say all this not to complain about unfair double standards or even to respond to Clinton. That is a waste of time. What’s important here is to show how her mind works and that of a large portion of the Western elite. Her remarks are not as bad as they sound when taken out of context. She does try to be balanced — though an attempt at equidistance is not exactly showing strong support for Israel — and also does — unlike Obama — criticize the Palestinians. Yet in policy terms at the very moment of culmination for a Palestinian Authority three-year effort to wreck any peace process by unilateral independence and when Hamas has decided the moment has come for a jihad backed up by the Islamist tidal wave in the region, Clinton and the Obama administration are obsessed with Israel not making even more concessions.

“I think Israelis have good grounds to be suspicious,” Clinton said. But what she didn’t explain are all the good grounds for Israelis to be suspicious of the Obama administration.

Click here to view the 71 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

71 Comments, 27 Threads

1.
Alpha

“The lack of generosity, the lack of empathy…” What a blow! she should have kept her mouth shut because even an intern at the WH could have done a better job.

Hill carries a ton of personal baggage – including a drinking problem – but even if she is sober as a judge it would be impossible for her not to be infected with bias against Israel.

She is just like her boss, in the most intrinsic ways which matter. She is both an avowed radical revolutionary (a combo of socialist/Marxist/communist stripes) from her college years (recall, her senior thesis and her devotion to Rules for Radicals), as well as a sympathizing Islamist.

WOW!!! “Who in the world has been generous towards Israel?”. This question in the midst of an article critisizing a US secretary of state. How about The US your nation would not exist without the aid especially military given you by the US. The EU- you have been given favoured trading status despite being in breach of more UN resolutions than any nation on earth and against the wishes of 79% of her citizens. We could also add Jordan and Mubarak’s Egypt.
With regards to ‘missing opportunities’; it’s always difficult to point to what opportunities Israel has missed when her policy of expansion and theft at the point of a gun seems to be succeding nicely thank you. If rather than stolen land being the criteria for success we consider lack of pariah status and a society that does not need to brutalize her youth in a colonial army then every rejected call for a halt to settlement expansion is a missed opportunity. (NB a freeze that does not include Jerusalem is NOT a freeze, your remarks in respect of this are laughable. You address what may or may not have been agreed with the Obama administration being completely oblivious to the Idea that it is the Palestinians you need to satisfy). Every cluster bomb you papered Lebanon with in the last 48 hrs of the last conflict there represents a missed opportunity. Every day that you fail to present a plan for a VIABLE palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is a day wasted. It’s easy to think that there is no need to do anything wrt peace as the ‘facts on the ground’ are altering in your favour very day, but at what cost?. Israel is not a normal society. The bread and butter politics that are the trademark of any functioning democracy are subsumed by the chest-beating nationalism of people like ‘Bi-Bi’. I grew up in a twisted hate-filled society and it’s only after years of peace that one can recognize the stunted personal growth of a society that feels it needs hate as a means of defence. You think that the world hates Israel; I am a strident critic of the policies of the Israeli govt. If there were a just peace the very people who criticise you now would be your most robust defenders. Shalom.

Dear Danny.
Ahistorical? Really? Is there some ‘absolute’ version of history that I should be referring to?. History is necessarily interpretative and therefore in a situation of no common narrative it is unlikely to be useful. How far back do you want the ‘History’ to begin?. Which events do you wish to emphasise?. Which events do you wish to ignore?. Do you really think that ‘the other side’ are ignorant of ‘the facts’ or do you think that there are different ways to interpret them?.
Amoral? Exactly how am I being amoral? I could be wrong, but it appears that my ‘amoral’ ‘analysis’ is due to my not recognising the moral superiority of your case. (see’History’ above). I could preface every sentence with a condemnation of the morality of someone who blows up people in a cafe. I could equally condemn the morality of missiles killing women and children.
In respect of a lack of empathy. I empathise with the damage done to Israeli society to individual Israelis by the current situation. Speaking from experience of a similair protracted conflict I emphasise the often overlooked aspects of such a conflict ie the warping/brutalising effect of inflicting violence as the effect of enduring violence recieves adequate attention. I also address the points raised in the article, which is whining and self pitying. The author asked the question “who has been generous to Israel?” I answered it. He asks what opportunities Israel has missed. I addressed this point. Your reply did not make any specific criticisms and seems to have simply lifted two overused terms which you seem to believe substitutes for thinking youself. In relation to ‘Generosity’ on my part. I probably struggle a little with this as the generosity cited by zionists is essentially ‘we could kill them all and we don’t’. I will again reiterate that an Israel within the ’67 borders would have no stouter defenders in the world than those who currently critisise her. Salaam.

Yes, ahistorical. For one, no one who knows the meaning of ‘colonial’ can apply that term to Israel or its army without disregarding history. It is equally ahistorical to say that someone trying to defend against invading armies who are set upon annihilation is engaged in ‘theft at the point of a gun’.

If I were dealing with someone who showed any signs of caring what really happened, I might cite other examples, but you are more interested in being snide and calling Israel nasty names than you are in considering what actually happened.

I take exception to everything across the board. I take it point by point:

How about The US your nation would not exist without the aid especially military given you by the US.

Actually, the only foreign power that aided the Jewish cause in Israel’s War of Independence was Stalin’s Soviet Union. The U.S. had a weapons embargo against both sides, and did not give Israel substantial military aid until much later. Perhaps, were it not for American aid, Israel might have been conquered by the Arabs in subsequent wars: but we shall never know that for certain. The Arabs were more dependent on Russia, for weapons and training, than Israel was on America; and why after all did Russia arm and train those Arab armies? Because they were fighting “American imperialism”! Besides, when Israel began receiving large amounts of U.S. military aid, after 1967, then from the very start the aid came with demands damaging to Israeli security: it was Kissinger who forced Israel to wait passively for the Egyptian onslaught in 1973, which led to massive Israeli losses in the first days of the Yom Kippur War; it was Carter and Brzezinski who wrenched the strategically and economically valuable Sinai peninsula from Israel to pay for Egypt’s “switching sides” in the Cold War. U.S. aid has been a two-edged sword!

The EU- you have been given favoured trading status despite being in breach of more UN resolutions than any nation on earth and against the wishes of 79% of her citizens.

In other words, the Israelis should be thankful that Europe has not always acted like a complete enemy, has not joined in the Muslim world’s jihad on Israel wholeheartedly, at least so long as Europe’s own economic and security interests were involved? Well, perhaps that is something to be thankful for, but it’s hardly something I would call “generosity.”

As for that “79%”, why should we care? Why should the Israelis care? As H.L. Mencken once said, the three traits shared by inferior men — which is to say average men — everywhere are cowardice, cruelty, and inability to think independently. So it can’t be surprising that so many people take such a stupid and immoral position.

We could also add Jordan and Mubarak’s Egypt.

For what? Cooperating against common enemies like Hamas? Does that also mean that Israel was “generous” to Egypt and Jordan for fighting Hamas? I don’t know of anyone who would say that.

it’s always difficult to point to what opportunities Israel has missed when her policy of expansion and theft at the point of a gun seems to be succeding nicely thank you.

I’m not sure what is meant by “a policy of expansion and theft at the point of a gun.” Of course, in one sense, every country that exists has “a policy of expansion and theft at the point of a gun,” for every country is in a Hobbesian state of nature with respect to all other countries. If this is all that was meant, than why single out Israel for doing something that, in all other cases, is recognized as an inevitable condition of international order? If the metaphor of “expansion and theft at the point of a gun” has some different meaning (and a metaphor it must be, because a country can’t literally commit “theft at the point of a gun”) then the author has very regrettably neglected to explain his meaning and we must leave him, as they say, hanging.

If [nonsense deleted] we consider lack of pariah status [more nonsense deleted] then every rejected call for a halt to settlement expansion is a missed opportunity.

The commenter believes that if Israel were to institute a total settlement freeze, it would become much more popular throughout the world. Presumably, the propaganda against it in the U.N., in much of the “mainstream media,” and among publicists and politicians on the so-called “global left” would cease. I’d call that an unsound empirical prediction, even if it is shared by some in Israel. The root of the matter is that there are two possible explanations for the antipathy toward Israel, which is unique in prevalence and intensity: either the Israelis are utterly bad people, motivated by a perverse desire to harm others; or the cause of the antipathy is Arab propaganda along with, in many cases, pre-existing antisemitism. There is no third alternative: one or the other is implicit in all the commentary on the subject. Now to me, and to most Americans, one of the alternatives is absurd on its face, and there is nothing implausible about the other. Now if the cause of the anti-Israel antipathy is Arab propaganda, why would the Arabs relent in their propaganda effort just when it seems to be working, that is, just when Israel is surrendering more territory or offering another “settlement freeze”?

I would have replied to the rest of the above comment, but I found the second half almost totally incomprehensible.

Oh – you’re full of it! What a bunch of garbage. Name a single country that existed before they were carved out after WWI? Iraq? Iran? Jordan? Shoot! TRANS-Jordan WAS the two-state solution for the stupid pals nee-ARABS! In fact, Winston Churchill STOLE 1/2 of what was to be the Israeli half of the Mandate and gave it to Jordan – but Jordan still invaded! East Jerusalem, Judah and Samaria (the so-called west bank) are ALL part of that invasion and rightfully belong to Israel as part of the mandate – so does Gaza!

So get off your high horse about stealing land. It’s the arabs – ALWAYS the arabs that steal land. Why don’t you demand that the arabs return all their stolen lands to their people? Like Egypt to the Copts and Iran to the Persians?

Its not about land it has never been about land. The land dispute is just a good peg on which to hang Jew killing and of course the worlds antisemitic Lame Stream EneMedia, Western Politicians and Left wing moonbat Socialists are just too naive , gullible and stupid that they swallow it hook line and sinker. Ever since Mohammad INVENTED Islam and had his sock puppet allah spout world domination and as an aside death to ALL Jews in the process. Antisemitism is a natural to Islam as Hypocrisy and lying.

Absolutely, just trying to buttress the fact that the British violated the Mandate that they agreed to uphold – and within two years of committing to it. What’s worse, I believe Churchill was very involved..

But, yes, it’s about Islam – they will oppose our right to exist until such point as they have no choice but to accept it. And we are apparently decades away from demonstrating that point to them, if at all.

“We can forgive you for killing our sons, but we can never forgive you or making us kill yours”. Golda Meir.

If you believe that the norm of international relations is a state of perpetual conflict and that the best a people can expect from a state is a powerful collective to aid it in that struggle then I am not surprised that you found the latter part of my comment incomprehensible. We as a species have not evolved to thrive in a state of continual conflict and we pay an extremely high psychic price for enduring it. I met many young Israelis while travelling in India and Nepal and they all without exception referred to the Palestinians as ‘animals’. They had all served in the IDF in the west-bank or Gaza in the two years preceeding this. Now is it that all Israelis are born racist and full of hate or is it possible that these young people were brutalized by carrying out an armed occupation?. It is difficult to put a dollar or shekel cost on this brutalization, but I for one would not wish my daughter to paint slogans on shells or to grow up to refer to an entire people as animals. Is this what you would want for your kids?. In reference to ‘theft and expansion at the point of a gun’ let me explain. I am referring to the continued illegal expansion of settlements on Palestenian land. This is made possible, not by appeal to international law but by the strength of the IDF. You feel that this is simply ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ that’s an opinion certainly but with the exception of the USA do not be appaled that we the world do not feel generosity about this sentiment.
The old bug-bear of equating criticism of the policies of Israel with anti-semetism. When I opposed the policies of apartheid-era South Africa was it based on a hatred of white people of European descent?. I do not Feel that Israelis are ‘bad’ people. I do understand how they see themselves the plucky little democracy ringed by enemies. An oppressed race (I am referrint to Israeli Jews here not Israeli Arabs as I believe their view on their states policies may differ) who only want a tiny corner of the world. Unfortunately several million people feel that they have a right to call that same little corner, home.
You refer to ‘another’ settlement freeze. Any complete and permanent settlement freeze would definitely make Israel more popular in most of the world. It would not be the end however, but a welcome start to the establishment of two states side by side based on the ’67 borders.
Stan. Do you think that America has never been generous to Israel?
(Nb I concede that we cannot know for certain the effect of Israel never having recieved US military aid. I believe that had she survived there would have been a constant war ofattrition much worse than exists at present.)
Namaste.

You seem to be under some misunderstanding of the “aid” Israel recieves. Certainly you don’t mention the mirror aid Egypt receives from us? Do you know why? It is because it was part of the Camp David Accord that the US brokered with Israel and Egypt for their peace treaty. And while we don’t put strings on the Egyptian aid, the Israeli aid is basically “credits” forcing them to buy our military equipment. They have NO CHOICE in either taking the so-called aid nor what it is to be used for.

PLUS…….We steal their intellectual property. You can thank an Israeli for your cell phone and all it led to.

I am aware that the aid is primarily military. I don’t feel Israel had to be arm-twisted into accepting it though. The military aid to Mubarak was hardly a gift to the Egyptian people. At present we have the USA encouraging the overthrow of one dictator in Syria while simultaneously giving military aid to the dictator next door in Jordan. (and Bahrain and Saudi Arabia).
With regards to countries being carved out and the theft of land. I mentioned earlier that I feel any appeal to history is probably in vain here. I am not referring to the whole state of Israel as stolen land (even though the Palestinians would) the theft I refer to is the building of settlements today.

May I point out the benefits receivevd from Israel? The technological advances and developments you probably use on a daily basis? The medical and scientific contributions and those agricultural systems that are being used in third-world countries to increase food production? I really have touched on a small number of benefits here and would suggest you check them out in full. The benefits are not quite as one-way as you suggest.

I’m a Brit and so part of the EU. Israel and the UK enjoy good bilateral trade relations. With our trade deficit, we benefit from the £2 billion export deals we have with Israel which are expected to rise to £3 billion by 2015. Why do you think Hague wouldn’t consider a boycott? We need the business.

As for colonialism. While it is certainly true Britain had an Empire do you really think she is the only country in the world ever to have done so? Are you not overlooking all those that went before, including the Arab and Ottoman empires?

Hi Michael,
You say, “I met many young Israelis while travelling in India and Nepal and they all without exception referred to the Palestinians as ‘animals’.”

Ummm, Bullsh*t. Unless you deceptively lowered the natural level of politeness all foreigners express to each other by you first referring to Palestinians in that way, and perhaps one of the Israelis you met then agreeing, I flatly do not believe you. There are hundreds, nay thousands, nay tens of thousands of Israelis who are to the LEFT OF YOU. So please don’t try to pass of that nonsense here.

Secondly, it is clear by your spelling of “favour” and “empathise” that you are one of those priceless princes from the UK. I do not hold this against you.

To quote you though,

I do not Feel that Israelis are ‘bad’ people. I do understand how they see themselves the plucky little…

– what a coincidence(!) nor do *I* feel that you British are “bad” people. I do understand though how you see yourselves as a plucky little leftover empire. I empathize with your desire to want to impress your opinions on many of your former colonies, but Michael, most of them have “moved on” — if you get my meaning?

Lastly, your “Shalom vs Salaam” bit is very cute (I haven’t, nor will I bother to read your third ponderous post). I for one really appreciate you, “as a European,” coming here and instilling in us Americans a refreshing reminder of just how self righteous and pompous an idealistic sophomore can be. Just enough experience to make yourself dangerous, eh Mr James?

Two brief points for now. Please read ‘chuck’s’ comment below for an attitude very similar to that I heard expressed by the young Israelis I met in India and Nepal. What I said is true. These were nice people, they simply hated palestinians. I didn’t go straight up to every Israeli and demand to know their opinion of the Palestine issue. These were people I spent some time with one a girl I went out with for about a month while we travelled together. I know many people with whom I disagree on many points. I don’t believe any person is encapsulated by a political view. (or a religion or race).

The internet is not ‘over here’ in America. I didn’t have to go anywhere to reply to a piece I disagreed with. If you only wish to engage with people who share your nationality, politics and possibly religion then possibly the WORLD WIDE web is not the platform for you.
Pax.

You’re certainly right that the US and Americans (probably not every administration, Hi Jimmy) have been generous to Israel. You have an extremely simplistic view of the cash sent to Israel and its neighbors. This cash is quid-pro-quo for upholding peace agreements and for making an honest attempt at a future peace agreement with the Pals. If Israel or any of its neighbors were to substantially not uphold their responsibilities the money would be stopped. The money assures that the Israeli PM answers the phone when the American Pres phones. In fact if the money were cut off to Israel then the Pax-americana would disintegrate in a short time. Congress would shortly cut off money to Egypt and Jordan and the Pals and those countries would go on their merry way.

The Irish, of course, cannot be called generous to Israel. Ha Ha. Bona fide Anti-semites.

Regarding Jerusalem, it belongs to Israel. The Arabs will never get it. You can believe that you speak for the world when you suggest that Israel has somehow stolen it and is somehow violating some international law by holding it but you’re wrong. It’s part of Israel. It will remain part of Israel. It can be discussed as part of peace negotiations but I doubt that the Pals will ever enter into peace negotiations.

I guess it’s natural that the Irish hate Israel because they’re a catholic country and because they were oppressed by the Brits in that Northern Ireland thing but your hateful rhetoric is non-sensical and baseless.

I think Michael James has already covered inappropriate usage of the term “anti-semitic”. Certainly, it is not a term Levi Eshkol used when planting a forest in honour of Irish President Eamonn de Valera in 1966 where he declared that he saw in the planting a “fitting expression of the traditional friendship between Ireland and Israel, which have so much in common.”

Of course, if having a shared history of oppression by a superior military force creates conditions where many Irish feel a natural empathy towards the Palestinian plight, this is definitely not, in any way, anti-semitic, and to label it so merely trivializes genuine anti-semitism.

“inappropriate usage of the term ‘anti-semitic’. Certainly, it is not a term Levi Eshkol used when planting a forest in honour of Irish President Eamonn de Valera in 1966 . . .

I wouldn’t dismiss the idea of Irish anti-semitism based on that. Levi Eshkol wouldn’t have called Eamonn de Valera an anti-semite, not least because de Valera was Jewish, born in New York. It’s very common for a Jew to plant trees in Israel in honor of another Jew.

And Eshkol was being magnanimously selective in referring to “the traditional friendship between Ireland and Israel, which have so much in common.” Ireland’s relationship with Jews in Palestine was sympathetic in the 1930s when both Ireland and Israelis were fighting the British. During and after WWII, Ireland got increasingly hostile to Israel, as the British began to side with her. The IRA supported the Nazis and vice-versa, and Irish neutrality in WWII was very popular in Ireland. When news of Hitler’s death came out in 1945, De Valera, while no friend of the IRA, visited the German legation in Dublin to offer his condolences.

I’m Irish-American (and Catholic). I’m also part-Jewish by blood, but don’t particularly look it. I love the Irish, both American and native-born. I’ve belonged to clubs with many native-born, and formed lasting friendships with them. I have listened patiently to the harangues of native Irish friends about the malevolent control of the world by “the DJEE-oos.” This line of thought is way more common among native Irish than any Americans I’ve met (other than Moslems and Lebanese Christians). My Irish friends are the salt of the earth, so I generally steer the logic elsewhere—sometimes pointing out my own Jewish ancestry and asking where I can get my share of world control. They probably view me as a good fellow despite my heritage.

To be realistic, Irish anti-semitism is quite prevalent among ordinary folk, and certainly among the intellectual set. As with other Europeans, for the Irish to be Arabist isn’t difficult, because as a rule, they don’t like or trust Jews to begin with.

I wonder what it is about the European mindset that they view successful people (and Jews are successful wherever they go) with suspicion and jealousy? You take an American – who, for the most part, is a decendant of those same Europeans, and his view would be, “hmmm…I wonder what they are doing right and how can I emmulate it?”

Dear Utopia.
It’s interesting that you feel it necessary to know where I’m from in order to categorize and pigeon-hole me. In polite circles that might be thought of as racism. You then class every Irish person as anti-semitic.
The Israelis have not honoured their agreements as they have continued to build settlements and the money has continued to flow.
On what basis does Jerusalem belong to Israel? Because ‘we say so and we have a huge military’ or is it because ‘God gave it to us’ (and we know that because we wrote it in a book that god gave it to us so it must be true).

Actually I certainly don’t care if you’re Irish. I don’t care where you’re from. But you’re right, I did pigeon-hole you. Your comments are just like many of the anti-semitic comments I read from self-identified Irish posters. I was certainly surprised at first a few years ago to see lots of anti-Isral/anti-semitic/pro-pal comments from posters on various internet sites that self-identify as from Ireland but it’s clearly a trend. JCaelen offers a more clear explanation of this than I can. I don’t care if you’re really Irish or not. You just sound like the others. You don’t seem capable of any sympathy to the Israeli or Jewish point of view. Facts don’t impress you.

Re Jerusalem:

Was founded by Jews. Has been continually inhabited by Jews as long as its been in existence. Has been majority Jewish population in recent centuries, including under Ottoman control. Mentioned daily in Jewish prayers around the world, probably for at least past 2000 years. In short: it has always been a Jewish city.

Arabs don’t share well. During the period of Jordanian control of E Jerusalem all Jews were ethnically cleansed from EJ, over 50 synagogues were damaged or destroyed in EJ, agreements by Jordan to allow Jews to pray at the western wall were violated. During the period since Israel regained control of EJ the city and religious sites have been open to members of all faiths, Muslims have rights on the temple mount, when asked EJ arabs say they prefer to live under Israeli control rather than the PLO and those that have the right to do so will move to other parts of Israel if EJ comes under PLO control. In short: giving important parts of EJ to Arab control, will undoubtedly result in Jews not being able to access Jewish holy sites, and will result in a continuation of the conflict.

There was a time not so long ago when Israelis would have given up parts of J in exchange for a real peace. They would have given it up not because the Pals deserve it or have real rights to it but they would have given it up in exchange for a real peace. There is too little trust now, too little likelihood of a real peace for the Israelis to give up any part of J. Let the Pals rename Ramallah to Al-Quds, declare victory, and call it a day.

In the spirit of KISS (keep it simple stupid) since I believe we are dealing with simple people (the left) I’ll offer up my explanation for the liberals (and the rest of the liberal world) leaning on Israel and not the Palestinians. Its like a double door and you know you have to get through that door. You push on one side (Palestinian) and it doesn’t open – try as you might – so you push on the other side (Israeli) and VIOLA – it yields. Every time you want to enter that door you you push on the side that yields. Soon enough it becomes an expectation for that side to yield – logical or not.

“She added that she believed a Palestinian state would have already been established had Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin not been murdered. “I think the Israeli people would have trusted him to make the hard decisions that were needed,” she said.

Rabin , the man who said the PA would deal with Hamas without B’tzelem or amnesty international looking over their shoulders , was going to be more generous with Arafat. Highly unlikely. Mind you it is reported that after looking in Rabin’s safe and seeing what he promised Assad, Peres said ” and it’s me they (Israeli voters) think they can’t trust?’

” Every Israeli leader, except those on the right-wing fringe, is perfectly aware of the Palestinian case and complaints.”

As members of that ” right-wing fringe ” we are not unaware of the complaints you refer to. We simply dismiss them as being false and without merit. The so called ” two state solution ” never was. The FACT is that the muslims of territorial now control three separate entities , any of which could be called a state ( in fact one is ) , that comprise 80% of the territory they claim as their own. The reason they keep turning down offers of sovereignty is that they want nothing less than our destruction. That is their mindset and their goal. That is the only fact that matters to those of us who live here.
The educated among us want simply take back the rest of what is ours.

“The reason they keep turning down offers of sovereignty is that they want nothing less than our destruction. That is their mindset and their goal. That is the only fact that matters to those of us who live here.”

Yes, and the leftish mindset doesn’t care. This mindset is childish. It acts like a three year-old who throws sand at another child and then wines “I didn’t mean it.” Besides it behaves like Neville Chamberlain who probably didn’t believe that Hitler meant it and made appeasement. It thinks they don’t mean it and they would behave differently if Israel were in the 1967 borders. They wouldn’t. They would use the strategic advantages and fire more rockets. They want it all. Otherwise they would have a state like Clinton said. She is probably serious on that. The rest is tissue for the left’s tears. While behaving like children and ignoring unpleasant facts the left slowly became anti-Semitic. And this belief system seems to me like a snowball getting bigger and bigger while Israel is standing alone. It embitters me because it is Israel that needs the mental support, a support against Evil, against a wishful thinking of genocide on the other side. But not only Israel is left alone, also Christians in the North of Nigeria are lacking support against Boko Haram who slit their throats open. Baha’i and Copts are often left alone. Obama sent the Churchill bust back to England. The left doesn’t care about planned genocide. It feeds crocodiles. Israel cannot rely on it. My heart is with you.

And this explanation by #6 is quite good too:
“In the spirit of KISS (keep it simple stupid) since I believe we are dealing with simple people (the left) I’ll offer up my explanation for the liberals (and the rest of the liberal world) leaning on Israel and not the Palestinians. Its like a double door and you know you have to get through that door. You push on one side (Palestinian) and it doesn’t open – try as you might – so you push on the other side (Israeli) and VIOLA – it yields. Every time you want to enter that door you you push on the side that yields. Soon enough it becomes an expectation for that side to yield – logical or not.”

Well said Dany. Exactly what have the Palestinians done to deserve any empathy, or sympathy from anybody? Nothing, repeat NOTHING.

What have the Palestinians done to merit universal contempt and disgust?

By adhering to Islam they allow adult men to marry little girls, they teach their children that killing Jews and Christians will bring them eternal reward, they violate every one of the agreements they make with Israel, their maps show no Israel; while the Jews have made disproportionate contributions in science, technology, medicine and agriculture that improve the lives of everyone, including Palestinians, the Palestinians have contributed disproportionately to murder and terrorism but nothing positive. The list could go on. They are professional victims. The Palestinians are deserving of nothing.

For the Palestinians like other Muslims, liberation should mean Liberation from Islam.

Wassn’t it Hillary Rodham Clinton (hereinafter HRC) who kissed Suha Arafat (on the cheeks)after Suha told the tale of Israelis poisoning the wells of water the Palestinians drank? HRC’s lame excuse- no one interpreted that to me. If HRC is talking about the history of really (documented) oppression of people- it is the Jews- Romans tried their very best (De Bello Caesarao)- the Spanish Inquisition and Shephardic Jews. Russian Empire and the pogroms- Europe in Middle Ages and the oppression/deportation/exclusion/start of real antiSemitism with the Guethenberg Bible- and the Popes for Crucifixation of (Hebrew)Jesus. (Vatican has the originals from Blini the Younger to the Elder-who was the overseer (governator) in Judea/Caesarea/Canaan ). Oppressed people- what about the ghettos in Maghreb? What about the Final Solution and Holocaust? HRC- does that qualify for oppressed people? After The State of Israel – Arab countries confiscating Jewish assets- expelling Jews- even murdering them on the spot? Does that qualify for oppressed people, HRC? Coming to Lack of Empathy- tally up the numbers HRC- no other group in charity giving- aid giving- comes even close to that of Jews/Jewish charities/Jews giving to other charities. No other people but the Israelis are the Good Samaritans when it comes to providing medical care- ask the one operated in Israel who was the spouse of Black September’s last survivor in Syria ? Lack of empathy- HRC? HRC and the EU people (approbatur students for me) take a special glee in daring to criticize Israel for any and all reasons- in vogue bashing Israel and raising the Judenfrage again. Part of this is pure envy- part of this is lack of learning (Latin and history)- part of this is EU/before individual states had more balanced views- but now EU has reignited the old blamegames for their own problems/economies/dependencies/Schengen and immigration+refugees.Thinking that it is the Arabists in the US/State dept.- no way since these remarks only show HRC’s inner anime that was formed in her youth.The ‘Palestinian factions’ cannot even agree amongst themselves- their backers/financiers at various times are the ones they are answering to- not to the statescraft of signing any binding Agreements with Israel. They are like bratty children- or Oliver Twist/more,more. Golda Meir said- there will be peace when Palestinians love their children more than they hate Israel.

Wow! A retroactive anti-semitic version of history. The mass expulsion – and in practice, mass murder and and mass forced-conversion of the 1 million loyal Jews of Spain – is one of the greatest crimes in history. by the way, the decree was passed in 1391, way before.

Now posting Jews discussing their leading role in promoting colonization and disempowerment of the European Christian majority/order is anti-semitic.

The truth of the matter is that the majority of Jews are Anti-EuropeanChristian, as we can see by their voting patterns in the US….for the Marxist destroyers of the old Christian order. Jews are setting themselves up again, just like they did with regards to the Iberian Penninsula.

What you are doing with regards to the Spanish Christians is similar to what the current Leftwing demonizers of Israeli Jews are doing. Ignoring context and history and pointing fingers at those who got the upper hand in a bad situation regarding Muslims…as oppressors and human rights abusers.

The Spanish Inquisition is a straw man argument. It was the centuries long persecution and forced conversions of the loyal, assimilated Spanish Jewish population. The expulsion of the Jews, in many cases to their deaths, by the inhuman monsters Ferdinand and Isabella is one of the greatest atrocities in human history.

In general, the treatment of the Jews in Christendom made the horrors of ISlam look like a picnic.

By the way, the “fifth column” argument is a traditional anti-semitic argument, going all the way back to the book of Exodus.

A fair minded person would actually look at the collusion of the Jews with the Muslims to gain favor, and understand why Jews were disliked virulently after 700 years of war and oppression by the Arab Muslims. The Jews didnt have it much better, but they knew who to suck up to, and who to stab in the back. When the order changed, Jewish actions werent appreciated by the re-established European Christian majority/order.

Israel should look carefully at Clinton’s comments on the Syrian situation since the beginning of 2011. Are these an indication of a deeply caring person who would use all her influence to push for a peaceful and just resolution? I think not.

Israel should look at Clinton’s words about the Palestinian-Israeli situation in the light of her own ambitions. I think her ambitions determine what she says rather than being a principled person who is straight and honest about the intractable situation with no easy solutions.

Hillary, a self absorbed calculating politician? Who would have thought? After the “proud feminist” accepted Bil’s philandering to maintain access to power? After moving to NY to “serve it’s people” unless someone offers her a cabinet position or she secures the presidential nomination?I am shocked, shocked.

‘ She does try to be balanced’
No she doesn’t actually she doesn’t know how, because she is a radical lefty that tries to appear centrist. If god forbid she becomes president she will be ten time more dangerous than Obama. At least Hussein O doesn’t hide his contempt toward Israel. On the other hand The Clintons both Bill & Hillary by appearing sympathetic toward The Jews/Israel are capable to force Israel into surrender. Thank God Arafat did back out from negotiation during Bill’s presidency, when Barak was ready to give away Israel to appease Billy boy.

In my life the most odious people are mid-western twerps like Hil: grab the fat, take cheat and lie, God loves you so.

These loathsome middle class types own the country now, and how would they feel to have their lives on the line, faced with enemies in eye shot?

I think Israel should have started settling after 67 and certainly after 73. They have the land by Right of Conquest and can point to European treatment of ethnic Germans, who were abused with cause, after WWII.

Hillary and her hubby and all the old politicians need to fade away. They all talk of ‘greedy white people’.Of course that’s a slur on all, because we’re ALL descended from African race.
She and her hubby and our so-called ‘president’ pitch socialism, socialism, socialism as the ‘cure for all’.
The larger the population of dumb and dumber people, the easier they are to control and convince that anyone really working doesn’t deserve more then minimum wage – except the politicians who get to become millionaires and tell US how we should live.
AL Gore’s electric bill per month rivals the ANNUAL electric bill of others in his county, yet he keeps preaching the ‘small footprint’.
None of these blowhards – including our hollywood ultra rich – ever really works for a living, hence they think that those who DO work, are ‘fooling’ the rest of the planet.

Time to get rid of all of them. Anyone over 50 should forced OUT of politics and forced to live in seclusion where their vile poison cannot reach the sane.

Barry, as long as too many with their paws on the levers of power inside the Beltway, and elsewhere, cast a blind eye to what Howard M. Sachar wrote in the chapters “Birth of Israel” and “War of Independence”, in “A History of Israel from the rise of Zionism to our time” – they are part of the problem, instead of being part of the solution.

Before the press, practically before the eyes of the world, she misled judgment of listeners and spectators, this time, the readers. Evil contempt of leaders like her is literally poisoning minds of world (regional) constituencies, misleading world opinion. Had she forgotten, reviewed, did her homework over agenda? Careless pronouncements of people like her, under such capacity, bare to what direction her discriminatino are set on. And her striving to cover-up their smugness passing the blame away as `missed opportunities of Israel´. Snides are these remarks, diminuting the conflict as kids´ play. Oh, sorry, yes, she represents the US? Oh, kissing the id of her boss and the oily cohorts. G_d forgive me, when will YOU punish them?

The muslim ideology is all about hate, revenge, intolerance, violence and lying to gain advantage over your enemy – it’s all about might-makes-right extortion, aka CRIME.

Rape, war and poverty were all endorsed by Muhammad, who called them “holy duties!” Naturally, the poverty bit didn’t apply to him personally.

Islamic “beliefs” include the belief that their god cannot be understood nor reasoned with, (so it might as well not exist at all) only feared and obeyed. They also include the criminal notion that, since Muhammad got away with committing his crimes, (and he tried them all, enthusiastically, many times and, far from ever feeling remorse or apologizing for them, instead encouraged everyone else to join him in committing them, too) then “god” must have wanted him to get away with committing those crimes! So obviously islam is only an ancient yet ongoing extortion-racket CRIME syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:

“God told us to commit these crimes!”

(Capisce?)!

So why does it now always seem to be “illegal” to accuse these moslem criminals of their crimes, if doing so might hurt their feelings (and so “make” them commit even more crimes!)? Simply because:

Liberals are racists – they always assume that ONLY White, Western people (including, of course, the Jews in Israel,) are INTELLIGENT enough to be judged guilty of being truly evil, while all their pet “People Of Colour” (including, of course, the “swarthy palestinians,”) just can’t help being violent animals, the poor oppressed little dears, so they’ll always indulge their crimes, much as one ignores the new puppy as it pees on the rugs.

Emocrats don’t use the higher, cognitive brain functions – they only emote. Too much reacting, not enough problem solving; the fruits of always buying into and re-selling pre-packaged victimology scenarios all the time; they find it much easier to blame others and do nothing, than to help them selves by accepting personal self-reliant responsibility.

These ever-Moving-Forward lemmings or Progressives, only ever really “progress” from the responsibility to become factually, objectively right, to the opinion that they have a subjective right to remain irresponsibly wrong!

Liberals are idolaters who pretend to believe in group rights, never in individual responsibilities!

And their real problem is that liberals hate personal responsibility, so they avoid it by selling endless group-rights victimology scenarios instead. That way the cowards can pretend to be champions without risking accusing any real individual human criminals of their crimes!

Their group-rights victimology sales are based on a critical-thinking logical fallacy (which is really only a slanderous evasion of the fact that he has no facts): aka the Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other, which in this specific case advocates for the false notion that, if a perceived minority exists, then it’s minority status “must be” the fault (and have been caused by) a nearby group which currently enjoys a relative majority status, in comparison. Generalized and abstracted, it only means:

“All minorities were decimated into that status by oppressive majorities! Always!”

So, yes – never having any facts which would ever agree with their perpetual irrationality, the left must always resort to the slanderous evasions known collectively as the critical thinking logical fallacies (the deflective ad-hominem personal attacks, the distractive strawman red-herrings, and of course the immoral relativist’s favorite, the tu quoque – i.e: “islam – or crime in general – isn’t evil because we all do it too! Whee!”).

Isn’t it funny that people who actually have facts, rarely (if ever) seem to feel the need to indulge in fallacies?

In general, no police are necessary among free citizens who can govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of police are enough for a people who CANNOT govern themselves.

So, these “more laws = order!” folks believe that everything is allowed except that which is specifically forbidden (and so don’t believe in any general abstract principle or morality). So they make endless micro-managing laws (known as “ethics”) which leave open endless loopholes.

And, not being based on the Golden Rule of Law (which defines our only responsibility as “Do Not Attack First!” and our only “negative” right as to not be attacked first) these lesser laws of theirs are really all only criminally negligent crimes – at best!

The platitudes of supporting a two state soultion, of magnifying Israels faults to create the optical illusion they they too have committed atrocities equal to the Arabs comes with the diplomatic game. It’s like plausible deniabilty. As long as everyone agrees to accept the lies in the name of ” diplomacy” the game will continue. Behaviour that is rewarded is perpetuated. Unless someone is willing to walk away from the board, the game goes on ( or until the sore losers I.e islamic fundamentalists, socialist ‘do as I say not as I do’ 1%ers kick over the board).

They all fall into the current dominant Western view that the world’s problems are caused by greedy, aggressive, unempathetic white people who oppress everyone else. Implied here is that the only solution is that such people take risks, make unilateral concessions, pay money, and continually apologize for their sins. — Rubin

This is the bottom line. This is why there is a rape epidemic in Oslo, whom nobody talks about, except in euphemisms and economic and psychological mumbo jumbo in the passive voice, usually ending with blaming the victims as racist oppressors.

I think Hillary misses the boat. All these years she
has not figured out that the mindset of muslims is
different than the Judeo/Christian one, that is of
faith, kindness, etc,. She needs to read the Koran.
Muslims for the most part feel it is all right to lie
and even murder if it goes against the infidel which are
anyone that isn’t a muslim. By dealing with these
people on an equal level as she does with Americans,
Christians, Jews, – she messes the middle east up more
making it easier for the muslims and their agenda and
harder for America and Israel. Need I say more? And by
the way, isn’t she aware that there are muslim
brotherhoodsters in the White House?